W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > July 2008

Re: revised reviews for 001 and 002

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:21:31 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080716181106.03757490@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi Tim,

At 20:59 15/07/2008, Tim Boland wrote:

>I have revised my reviews of 001 and 002 after considering the new 
>information in:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Jul/0014.html
>and rereading the process document.  All my conclusions now are 
>"pass" or "fail" (no more "not sures).. with additional explanations provided.

Thanks for this.

I notice that you found an inconsistency regarding the date format 
for dc:date in the metadata: the TCDL 2.0 spec only mentions the 
format yyyy-mm-dd, but "WCAG 2.0 Test Samples Metadata" only mentions 
the CVS date command. I have updated the TCDL 2.0 spec so that the 
CVS date command is also allowed (which is consistent with the XML 
Schema for TCDL 2.0). This fix will become visible when CarlosV 
updates the TCDL spec on the BenToWeb site.
(Additional background: Dublin Core doesn't impose the yyyy-mm-dd 
format; see <http://dublincore.org/2008/01/14/dcelements.rdf#>: "Date 
may be used to express temporal information at any level of 
granularity.  Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, 
such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF].")

I have fixed the typo in the test file that is mentioned in the 
structure review for content-structure-separation-programmatic_001.

With regard to the question: "what happens if TCDL goes 
away/changes?": the Task Force is currently the only user of TCDL 2.0 
(to my knowledge), so it only needs to change in response to requests 
from the task force. BenToWeb has no intention of removing TCDL. 
Similarly, BenToWeb also confirmed that it would not change the 
rulesets.xml except to add "rules" for newer WCAG 2.0 drafts (and 
possibly other accessibility specs); nothing will be removed (see 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2007Apr/0010.html>).

Best regards,

Christophe


>Thanks and best wishes
>Tim Boland NIST
>

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 16:22:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 July 2008 16:22:24 GMT